search for: bar0

...d 1.0). > > If 2.0 is fully backwards compatible, great. It seems like such a > difference that that would be impossible but I need to investigate > further. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori If you look at my patches you'll see how it works. Basically old guests use BAR0 new ones don't, so it's easy: BAR0 access means legacy guest. Only started testing but things seem to work fine with old guests so far. I think we need a spec, not just driver code. Rusty what's the plan? Want me to write it? > > > > It's a delicate balancing act. My...

...d 1.0). > > If 2.0 is fully backwards compatible, great. It seems like such a > difference that that would be impossible but I need to investigate > further. > > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori If you look at my patches you'll see how it works. Basically old guests use BAR0 new ones don't, so it's easy: BAR0 access means legacy guest. Only started testing but things seem to work fine with old guests so far. I think we need a spec, not just driver code. Rusty what's the plan? Want me to write it? > > > > It's a delicate balancing act. My...

...a > >> difference that that would be impossible but I need to investigate > >> further. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Anthony Liguori > > > > If you look at my patches you'll see how it works. > > Basically old guests use BAR0 new ones don't, so > > it's easy: BAR0 access means legacy guest. > > Only started testing but things seem to work > > fine with old guests so far. > > > > I think we need a spec, not just driver code. > > > > Rusty what's the plan? Want me to w...

...a > >> difference that that would be impossible but I need to investigate > >> further. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Anthony Liguori > > > > If you look at my patches you'll see how it works. > > Basically old guests use BAR0 new ones don't, so > > it's easy: BAR0 access means legacy guest. > > Only started testing but things seem to work > > fine with old guests so far. > > > > I think we need a spec, not just driver code. > > > > Rusty what's the plan? Want me to w...

...upport a legacy layout in addition to the new one, > > and if you look at the patch you will see that that > > is exactly what it does. > > Adding a new BAR most certainly requires bumping the revision ID or > changing the device ID, no? No, why would it? If a device dropped BAR0, that would be a good reason to bump revision ID. We don't do this yet. > Didn't we run into this problem with the virtio-win drivers with just > the BAR size changing? Because they had a bug: they validated BAR0 size. AFAIK they don't care what happens with other bars. > &...

...kwards compatible, great. It seems like such a >> difference that that would be impossible but I need to investigate >> further. >> >> Regards, >> >> Anthony Liguori > > If you look at my patches you'll see how it works. > Basically old guests use BAR0 new ones don't, so > it's easy: BAR0 access means legacy guest. > Only started testing but things seem to work > fine with old guests so far. > > I think we need a spec, not just driver code. > > Rusty what's the plan? Want me to write it? We need both, of course,...

...investigate > >> >> further. > >> >> > >> >> Regards, > >> >> > >> >> Anthony Liguori > >> > > >> > If you look at my patches you'll see how it works. > >> > Basically old guests use BAR0 new ones don't, so > >> > it's easy: BAR0 access means legacy guest. > >> > Only started testing but things seem to work > >> > fine with old guests so far. > >> > > >> > I think we need a spec, not just driver code. > >>...

...investigate > >> >> further. > >> >> > >> >> Regards, > >> >> > >> >> Anthony Liguori > >> > > >> > If you look at my patches you'll see how it works. > >> > Basically old guests use BAR0 new ones don't, so > >> > it's easy: BAR0 access means legacy guest. > >> > Only started testing but things seem to work > >> > fine with old guests so far. > >> > > >> > I think we need a spec, not just driver code. > >>...

...ing a new BAR most certainly requires bumping the revision ID or >> changing the device ID, no? > > No, why would it? If we change the programming interface for a device in a way that is incompatible, we are required to change the revision ID and/or device ID. > If a device dropped BAR0, that would be a good reason > to bump revision ID. > We don't do this yet. But we have to drop BAR0 to put it behind a PCI express bus, right? If that's the case, then device that's exposed on the PCI express bus must use a different device ID and/or revision ID. That means a...

...tel en default 6 from-zaptel en default 7 from-zaptel en default 8 from-zaptel en default budsw*CLI> but in dmesg: r4fxo: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel. rcbfx 1: Rhino PCI BAR0 febff000 IOMem mapped at f8b12000 rcbfx 1: Waiting for response from card ......... rcbfx 1: Firmware Version 1.f rcbfx 1: Firmware File Version is 1.f rcbfx 1: Hardware version 11 rcbfx 1: G168 07 04 DSP Loader file size = 170 App file size = 48414 rcbfx 1: G168 DSP Ping DSP Version 106 rcbfx 1: G...

Some setups don't support enabling BAR0 (IO BAR). Reasons range from CPU limitations (e.g. on some powerpc setups) to architecture limmitations (e.g. a setup with >15 PCI bridges, with one virtio device behind each, on x86). PCI Express spec made IO optional, so future guests will disable IO for a device in more and more configuratio...

Some setups don't support enabling BAR0 (IO BAR). Reasons range from CPU limitations (e.g. on some powerpc setups) to architecture limmitations (e.g. a setup with >15 PCI bridges, with one virtio device behind each, on x86). PCI Express spec made IO optional, so future guests will disable IO for a device in more and more configuratio...

...It means that the address reading of 0x700000 results the kernel crash. Why does it happen? The result of the address reading of 0x619f04 is shown for the information. static void nouveau_bios_shadow_pramin(struct nouveau_bios *bios) { struct nouveau_device *device = nv_device(bios); u32 bar0 = 0; int i; unsigned int tmp_val; if (device->card_type >= NV_50) { u64 addr = (u64)(nv_rd32(bios, 0x619f04) & 0xffffff00) << 8; if (!addr) { addr = (u64)nv_rd32(bios, 0x001700) << 16; addr += 0xf0000; } ba...

...; writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:59:33AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:01:50PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> > You mean make BAR0 an MMIO BAR? > >> > Yes, it would break current windows guests. > >> > Further, as long as we use same address to notify all queues, > >> > we would also need to decode the instruction on x86 and that's > >> > measureably slower than PIO. > &gt...

...; writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:59:33AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 03:01:50PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> > You mean make BAR0 an MMIO BAR? > >> > Yes, it would break current windows guests. > >> > Further, as long as we use same address to notify all queues, > >> > we would also need to decode the instruction on x86 and that's > >> > measureably slower than PIO. > &gt...

Move resource allocation from common code to legacy and modern code. Only request resources actually used, i.e. bar0 in legacy mode and the bar(s) specified by capabilities in modern mode. Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at redhat.com> --- drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c | 7 ------- drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.h | 2 ++ drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_legacy.c | 13 ++++++++++++- drivers/virtio/...

Move resource allocation from common code to legacy and modern code. Only request resources actually used, i.e. bar0 in legacy mode and the bar(s) specified by capabilities in modern mode. Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at redhat.com> --- drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c | 7 ------- drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.h | 2 ++ drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_legacy.c | 13 ++++++++++++- drivers/virtio/...

...will see that that is exactly what it does. > Re: the new config layout, I don't think we would want to use it for > anything but new devices. Forcing a guest driver change There's no forcing. If you look at the patches closely, you will see that we still support the old layout on BAR0. > is a really big > deal and I see no reason to do that unless there's a compelling reason > to. There are many a compelling reasons, and they are well known limitations of virtio PCI: - PCI spec compliance (madates device operation with IO memory disabled). - support 64 bit addre...

Move resource allocation from common code to legacy and modern code. Only request resources actually used, i.e. bar0 in legacy mode and the bar(s) specified by capabilities in modern mode. Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at redhat.com> --- drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c | 7 ------- drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.h | 2 ++ drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_legacy.c | 13 ++++++++++++- drivers/virtio/...

Move resource allocation from common code to legacy and modern code. Only request resources actually used, i.e. bar0 in legacy mode and the bar(s) specified by capabilities in modern mode. Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at redhat.com> --- drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.c | 7 ------- drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_common.h | 2 ++ drivers/virtio/virtio_pci_legacy.c | 13 ++++++++++++- drivers/virtio/...